Really, so when a us company spends millions of dollars developing something and then anyone can just replicate it you think anyone is going to spend the money to develop new technology? Once the US companies develop it, you think that China isn't going to just make the exact same thing for half the price a year later?

Really, so when a us company spends millions of dollars developing something and then anyone can just replicate it you think anyone is going to spend the money to develop new technology? Once the US companies develop it, you think that China isn't going to just make the exact same thing for half the price a year later?

It promotes technology you can't have technology growth without it...

Agree 100%. Patents and Intellectual Property are key to successful business. At an even higher level, a hallmark of countries and societies that spawn successful businesses is strong legal protection for IP and patents. This is historically proven.

_________________"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." - John Adams

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” - Neil deGrasse Tyson

IP says that I can't use my own property in a certain way because someone else used it that way first. I have issues with that on a basic level.

But, beyond that, the arguments for IP have never been substantiated.

Quote:

At an even higher level, a hallmark of countries and societies that spawn successful businesses is strong legal protection for IP and patents. This is historically proven.

No its not. There is clearly a correlation, but that does not prove causation. Countries with highly developed businesses just mean that the businesses have the political clout to push for monopoly-granting IP laws.

Quote:

Really, so when a us company spends millions of dollars developing something and then anyone can just replicate it you think anyone is going to spend the money to develop new technology?

Short answer: Yes.

Humans have been innovating since the dawn of civilization and will continue to do so until the world ends.

IP isn't going to change anything.

First, how many innovations are by pure chance or accident? Should you get a government granted monopoly on an idea you had by pure chance?

Second, there are advantages to R+D as a business even if you don't get IP for it. Are you familiar with the term first mover advantage? Apple's iPad, for example. Other manufacturers can make tablets, and have been in large numbers. But the iPad still dominates because it is what consumers are used to.

It starts to get tricky when you start talking about things like developing new drugs. But those are so costly to develop because the FDA imposes millions of dollars in testing fees.

What about the clearly negative effects to IP? How long should it last for? Should I get to pass my IP onto my children? And them to their children and on and on? Where do you draw the line?

Its too bad for Pythagorus' relatives. The greek's wouldn't have any budget issues at all right now if there had been IP back then.

What is worthy of IP and what is not? Do you know Henry Ford had to fight to make the Model T because of IP laws? If he hadn't won his appeal there would be no modern car industry because a small cabal of manufactures claimed to hold the rights to produce gasoline powered cars.

What about companies that buy the rights to their competitors' IP just to keep it off the market?

September 18th, 2011, 12:22 am

njroar

QB Coach - Brian Callahan

Joined: September 25th, 2007, 3:20 amPosts: 3229

Re: Obama Love Thread

And Ford refused to pay for someone else's invention of the wiper blades, who later won millions in court.

And for companies that buy out the IP's, at least those inventors got something for their idea. Luck and chance are part of innovation. Without innovation, you get the last decade and a half in this country. Every decade technology grows stale and something new replaces it. Now you've got 3rd world countries stealing ideas from our inventors because the patent office put their idea on the market because it was posted online before it could be reviewed. Those items used to refresh the technology, create new markets, new jobs and restart the next technological cycle where it would happen all over again. You've got a decade of ideas that no one in this country has profited from.

I understand your problems with monopolies, but those problems were eliminated by the courts years ago. The laws force a fair practice. And funny you bring up the Ipad, because Apple is suing Samsung for copying them, just like they're suing Google for copying the mac os and making droid. But the courts sort it out, like they're supposed too.

The IP system allows the everyday person to have an idea and make it. The businesses sometimes buy up ideas that might compete in their market, but that everyday person now made it rich without having to produce the product. Its a win-win. Those companies that take out patents for anything that can possibly compete end up getting taken care of in court as well.

There's a big difference between the few rare instances of abuse in the system, to completely stifling any innovation with the current system. Is there still some issues with the system? Of course, but a system that can still be challenged but works, is better than one that tells the American people to think of ways to improve the world, then let China get rich off it.

You're right! I LOVE ObaMao now for giving us #AttackWatch. He's the gift that keeps on giving.

_________________

September 18th, 2011, 2:21 am

steensn

RIP Killer

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pmPosts: 13429

Re: Obama Love Thread

Blue, you can't use special cases to show that patents are negative. Overall they protect someone who takes the time to invent something and allows them to profit from it. If THEY decide to sell it to a company that decides to hold it it is their right. But if they want to sell it, no one can come in with a manufacturing system already in place and undercut them which is exactly what would happen. It spurs on innovation, does it mean no innovation happens without it? No, but it certainly creates a environment stable for the investors in IP.

What is the point in inventing something if Johnson and Johnson, GE, etc. could just nab your first product, get a few engineers to find a way to make it cheaper, then in 2 months have the original inventor undercut by a bigger company. How is anyone supposed to compete in those situations? Why would GE or J&J invest millions on new products if someone can just come and swipe through to make it as well for no cost?

Inventions are NOT in a vacuum. All inventions come the work of previous inventors, whos work came from previous inventors and so on.

The example of the windshield wiper. Required someone to invent the motor to power it, required someone to invent the squeegee, the flexible blade, etc.

IP is a non-natural right that we invented for the purpose of encouraging R+D. It is a subsidy which makes R+D more profitable, because you grant a monopoly for developing a successful technology.

However, clearly, IP has negative consequences. As it is non-natural and largely arbitrary it requires lots of line drawing. Should the duration of a patent be 1 year? 5 years? Lifetime? Hundreds of years? How specific should it be? Should I be able to patent rudimentary things like chairs and tables?

And then there's the example of how they play out in the real world: right now Samsung is banned from selling its tablet in Germany, and Apple will likely be banned from selling the iPhone in South Korea. Is that helping to spur innovation and create jobs? No, its just pissing off a lot of consumers and enriching some patent attorneys.

I think that patents and IP can have a place in modern society, but they should be limited in scope and intelligently implemented.

September 20th, 2011, 12:03 am

steensn

RIP Killer

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pmPosts: 13429

Re: Obama Love Thread

So you are not against IP... you should be more clear next time. What you are saying is they should be harder to get than they are now.

Next time be more clear... all the questions you pose have been discussed for YEARS so let's not act like there is this big degbate no one has thought about.

Just thought I'd add something to the patent debate. From 92-95, I worked for a robot manufacturer that did a lot of business with China. Suddenly they stopped ordering our products, but it turns out that they reverse-engineered them and began building them themselves. The company attempted to fight it through international courts, but it was going nowhere. Subsequently, I, along with many others, were laid-off and the company was sold to a German manufacturer a few years later.

The moral of this story is that the Chinese don't give a crap about patents or anything else for that matter.

_________________

September 21st, 2011, 12:56 am

steensn

RIP Killer

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pmPosts: 13429

Re: Obama Love Thread

They are starting to, but at least it keeps your business in the US secure from Chinese reverse engineering...

By BEN FELLER, AP White House Correspondent – 25 minutes ago WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama suggested Friday that six economic government agencies be meshed into one, an election-year idea intended to halt bureaucratic nightmares and force Republicans to support him on one of their own favorite issues.

"The government we have is not the government we need," Obama told business owners he'd gathered at the White House.

In an election year and a political atmosphere of tighter spending, Obama's motivation is about improving a giant bureaucracy, but that is hardly all of it.

To voters sick of dysfunction, Obama wants to show some action toward making Washington work better. Politically, his plan would allow him to do so by putting the onus on Congress and in particular his Republican critics in the House of Representatives and the Senate, to show why they would be against the pursuit of a leaner government.

Obama asked Congress to give him a kind of reorganization power that no president has had since Ronald Reagan, a Republican icon. It would guarantee Obama a vote, within 90 days, on any idea he should offer to consolidate agencies, provided the idea would save money and reduce the size of government.

It would be up to lawmakers, therefore, to grant Obama this fast-track authority and then decide whether to approve any of his specific ideas.

Politically, Obama is seeking advantage on the turf often owned by Republicans: Smaller government. He is attempting to directly counter Republican arguments that accuse him of presiding over the kind of regulation, spending and debt that can undermine the economy: a dominant theme of this year's debate and one often cited by his potential re-election rival, Republican Mitt Romney.

His first target would be to merge six major trade and commerce agencies into a one-stop-shopping department for American businesses. The Commerce Department would be among those that would cease to exist.

On the surface, what Chairman Maobama said today sounds great doesn't it? By consolidating some federal agencies, he will shrink the federal workforce by 1000-2000 and save $3 billion over 10 years. Hurray! This will immediately solve all of our problems. NOT! Once you consider that the Marxist has added 144,000 new government jobs since taking office and is borrowing close to $4 billion per day does one comprehend how insignificant this latest political stunt actually is.